Disagreeing in english and vietnamese
Yüklə 1,43 Mb.
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- 3.2.1.2. Data collection methods and respondents
- 3.2.2. Choice of Strategies by Respondents
- 3.2.2.2. Comments
- 3.2.3. Summary
3.2. Empirical Study3.2.1. Aims and Methodology3.2.1.1. AimsThe present empirical study is planned to attest to the following hypotheses:
3.2.1.2. Data collection methods and respondentsThe database used in the present empirical study is obtained from elicited written questionnaires #3, administered among 100 English native speakers in North America and 100 Vietnamese speakers in Hanoi. Questionnaires #3 contain 3 concrete situations in which the informants are supposed to converse with 10 partners different or/and identical in terms of age, gender, status, familiarity and closeness. In other words, the informants and their co-participants are put in symmetrical and asymmetrical role relationships. The informants are asked to provide their disagreeing responses to the prior evaluative tokens ‘Miss X is getting too fat’ (Situation 1), ‘Tax increase – a really cool idea’ (Situation 2) and ‘That party you and I went to was very boring’ (Situation 3). The informants can either create their own replies or choose from a set of utterances selected from the pretests and literature. Each informant has a set of 30 disagreements, classified as bald-on-record, on-record, off-record strategies and no FTA (based on Brown & Levinson’s model of politeness strategies), to write down or mark. A total of 6000 disagreement tokens (3000 in English and 3000 in Vietnamese) are loaded into and processed on SPSS. The English corpus is investigated in comparison to and contrast with the Vietnamese. The most significant cases are chosen and brought to further discussion. 3.2.2. Choice of Strategies by Respondents3.2.2.1. Data resultsFive cases out of ten in each situation are taken to further investigation provided that they are proved to be statistically significant across situations. Below are the outputs of 15 cases marked c, d, e, h and j, where the informants are supposed to be in disagreement with their close friends, people they dislike, colleagues (same age & gender), older acquaintances and older bosses as regards the prior evaluative tokens. 
Chart 3 13: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Close Friend (Miss X is fat)
Table 3 31: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Close Friend (Miss X is fat) 
Chart 3 14: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Close Friend (Tax increase)
Table 3 32: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Close Friend (Tax increase) Disagreeing Strategies to Close Friend: The English respondents are likely to be straightforward in expressing their disagreements conversing with close friends by their frequent abiding by bald-on-record and on-record strategies. The Vietnamese respondents seem to be careful in overtly stating their opposing stances, which reflects in their using more off-record strategies with the exception of 3.1c, where 35% of them deploy direct strategies with redress compared to 14% of the English. The low proportion of silence across three situations is worth noting. All respondents are likely to be responsive and co-operative, especially the Vietnamese. In 3.1c and 3.3c only one Vietnamese respondent out of 100 refuses to reply and in 3.2c the percentage is zero, which suggests the existence of some socially-ethical sanction concerning being responsive in interpersonal interaction to establish and keep solidarity and rapport in the target culture. 
Chart 3 15: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Close Friend (Boring party)
Table 3 33: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Close Friend (Boring party) 
Chart 3 16: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Someone You Dislike (Miss X is fat)
Table 3 34: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Someone You Dislike (Miss X is fat)
Table 3 35: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Someone You Dislike (Tax increase) 
Chart 3 17: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Someone You Dislike (Tax increase) Disagreeing Strategies to Someone You Dislike: Normally, it is embarrassing and inconvenient to interact with people with whom you do not get on well, let alone to disclose your negative views. The English Ss seem to be direct in their disagreements, and they appear to be most eager to defend Miss X in 3.1d with 49% of them clinging to bald-on-record strategies. Almost half of the Vietnamese informants are inclined to be less direct and imply their disagreement tokens via off-record strategies. In addition, the number of informants who opt out of performing the act, i.e. who do no FTA at all, is quite high in both groups. 
Chart 3 18: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Someone You Dislike (Boring party)
Table 3 36: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Someone You Dislike (Boring party) 
Chart 3 19: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Colleague, same age & gender (Miss X)
Table 3 37: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Colleague, same age & gender (Miss X)
Table 3 38: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Colleague, same age & gender (Tax) 
Chart 3 20: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Colleague, same age & gender (Tax)
Table 3 39: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Colleague, same age & gender (Party) Disagreeing Strategies to Colleague (same age & gender): The Vietnamese show greater tendency to abide by off-record strategies in 3.2e and 3.3e, which can be traced back to their emphasis on community-based solidarity, while the high proportion in English on-record strategies in these two cases might be the manifestation of Anglo-American focus on freedom from imposition and of action. However, the English in 3.1e are likely to be indirect in disagreeing with their colleagues by adhering to off-record strategies, while the Vietnamese Ss seem to prefer direct strategies with 16% of the respondents opting for bald-on-record strategies and 51% of them using on-record. 
Chart 3 21: Choice of Politeness to Disagree with Colleague, same age & gender (Party) 
Chart 3 22: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Acquaintance (Miss X is fat)
Table 3 40: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Acquaintance (Miss X is fat) 
Chart 3 23: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Acquaintance (Tax increase)
Table 3 41: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Acquaintance (Tax increase) Disagreeing Strategies to Older Acquaintance: It is of great interest to see the reciprocal influence of age and intimacy in the Vietnamese choice of strategies compared to the English. The preference for intimacy is visible in on-record strategies in 3.1h, whereas the emphasis on age is reflected in the adherence to off-record strategies in 3.2h and 3.3h. The high percentage of bald-on-record by the English informants implies that age is recognized but lightly treated in their culture. Also, their deployment of off-record strategies in 3.1h consistent with their choice of indirect strategies to colleagues in 3.1e may serve as evidence for English usage of indirectness as a means to express politeness. 
Chart 3 24: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Acquaintance (Boring party)
Table 3 42: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Acquaintance (Boring party)
Table 3 43: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Boss (Miss X is fat) 
Chart 3 25: Choice of Disagreeing Strategies to Disagree with Older Boss (Miss X is fat)
Table 3 44: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Boss (Tax increase) Disagreeing Strategies to Older Boss: Although the present number of informants who opt out of responding to their older bosses’ evaluative tokens is the highest across situations, the disparity in their use of direct and indirect strategies is of paramount significance. While the English exploit more off strategies in 3.1j, and on-record strategies in 3.2j and 3.3j, the Vietnamese would rather allude to their negative responses by using off-record strategies or stop voicing them. In Vietnamese culture, where interpersonal relationships are vertically structured, age and status are institutionalized respected and valued. Thus, one should act in caution in proffering disagreements to one’s older boss. The asymmetrical role relationships provide persuasive explanations for the low percentage of direct strategies by Vietnamese Ss, especially bald-on-record, the use of which seems to potentially damage the norms of social hierarchy. In 3.2j, for instance, none of 100 Vietnamese informants choose bald-on-record strategies. 
Chart 3 26: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Boss (Tax increase) 
Chart 3 27: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Boss (Boring Party)
Table 3 45: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Boss (Boring Party) 3.2.2.2. CommentsThe two groups of informants demonstrate considerable differences in their deployment of politeness strategies to express their disagreement tokens to the early stated assessments. In general, the English informants do not pay much attention to such factors as age, status or gender of their interlocutors, and they seem to be direct in situations where these factors reciprocally influence (e.g. disagreeing with colleagues, same age & gender; older acquaintances or bosses). They are inclined to forthrightly speak out their different evaluations no matter the Hs are their close friends or those they dislike. Also, they tend to directly disagree with others on non-personal topics like economics, politics and social issues (taxes or social get-togethers, for instance). In contrast, the Vietnamese informants attach significant importance to age and status in accordance with their socially normative ethics. Thus, instead of acting quite freely according to individual wills, they have to make their personal choices of strategy in conformity to institutionalized norms of behavior, which stress community-based solidarity and intimacy. They are likely to abide by direct strategies in ‘safe’ settings where role relationships are symmetrical, for example, talking with close friends or colleagues. In cases where there is little possibility of balancing personal choices and social norms, they opt for indirect strategies so as to avoid sounding too critical or aggressive. The reasonable account for the differences in Ss’ choice of politeness strategies can be made via due consideration of the differences in their assessment of social parameters and situations (cf. findings in Chapter 1). After all, they are just surface manifestations of the deep-level differences in the socio-cultural structures. 3.2.3. SummaryThe findings have provided strong evidence for the differences in strategic choice made by native speakers of English and Vietnamese in proffering disagreement tokens. Being less constrained by socially normative practices, the English informants are observed to flexibly adjust themselves to different interactive contexts and frequently deploy direct strategies according to their personal wants. Their local socio-cultural context which is much less hierarchical takes as its main concern the individual and his/her freedom of action and from intrusion. The Vietnamese might generally be judged as more indirect than their English counterparts in performing disagreements. However, as native Ss of a speech community, they cannot stay independent of the indigenous system of social norms determining linguistic and behavioral manners, which stresses hierarchy. It comes as no surprise that the Vietnamese tend to sound less direct when facing asymmetrical relationships which need some compromise or reciprocity in linguistic expressions. It is the wider socio-cultural contexts that serve as good grounds for all these differences in the Ss’ assessment of socio-cultural parameters and situations and choice of strategies. Yüklə 1,43 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||